02-11-2021, 06:01 PM
You all should know me well enough by now to know that I could give any of them at least a 15-minute discourse on why I won't be taking the vaccine. The shortest answer is, of course, "No. F off." However, I still need medical care because of being a transplant recipient.
Which of these would be the best:
(1) "No. Get back to me when they restore legal liability to the vaccine manufacturer." It shuts down all argument, or at least it should. I'd just keep repeating it until they shut the hell up.
(2) "No. Given my history of allergic reactions, a letter from Post Transplant ('we can neither vouch for the safety nor efficacy of these vaccines in transplant recipients'), and the data showing up on VAERS, I don't think it's in my best interests. At all." Leaves conversation open for argumention which I'm not at all interested in, but does give medical reasons for not doing it. May come in handy later.
(3) "No. Do you guys get kickbacks for these things? Or is percentage of patients vaccinated reflected in your performance appraisal or something?" I'd have to find a new doctor in all likelihood.
(4) "No. I'm concerned about allergic reactions, autoimmune disorders, the complete lack of knowledge of long-term side effects, the past history of SARS-coronavirus vaccines (animal deaths), in particular pathogenic priming and the results when exposed to another strain. AstraZeneca had their last little sliver of legal liability removed because they said they shouldn't be held responsible for side effects they may discover in FOUR YEARS.
I really am not willing to be lectured like a 6 y/o nor endure eye-rolling, etc. I'm angry, and there's a good chance my mouth editor would fail if I discussed it...which would be pointless anyway. They will never convince me it's safe, and I will never convince them that at this point, they're behaving more like a cult than scientists. Should I just stick with #1 or go with #2 or 4 in case I have to try to get an exemption at some point?
Which of these would be the best:
(1) "No. Get back to me when they restore legal liability to the vaccine manufacturer." It shuts down all argument, or at least it should. I'd just keep repeating it until they shut the hell up.
(2) "No. Given my history of allergic reactions, a letter from Post Transplant ('we can neither vouch for the safety nor efficacy of these vaccines in transplant recipients'), and the data showing up on VAERS, I don't think it's in my best interests. At all." Leaves conversation open for argumention which I'm not at all interested in, but does give medical reasons for not doing it. May come in handy later.
(3) "No. Do you guys get kickbacks for these things? Or is percentage of patients vaccinated reflected in your performance appraisal or something?" I'd have to find a new doctor in all likelihood.
(4) "No. I'm concerned about allergic reactions, autoimmune disorders, the complete lack of knowledge of long-term side effects, the past history of SARS-coronavirus vaccines (animal deaths), in particular pathogenic priming and the results when exposed to another strain. AstraZeneca had their last little sliver of legal liability removed because they said they shouldn't be held responsible for side effects they may discover in FOUR YEARS.
I really am not willing to be lectured like a 6 y/o nor endure eye-rolling, etc. I'm angry, and there's a good chance my mouth editor would fail if I discussed it...which would be pointless anyway. They will never convince me it's safe, and I will never convince them that at this point, they're behaving more like a cult than scientists. Should I just stick with #1 or go with #2 or 4 in case I have to try to get an exemption at some point?